February 28, 2008

The right-wing mot du jour seems to be "socialist." Sometimes, confusingly, it is combined with "communist" or with the communistic honorific "comrade," especially to make use of the appealing internal rhyme in "comrade Obama." All this has left me, as a notoriously poor student of politics and history, wondering, "What is socialism, why is the word popping up now, and how should I react to it?" This post is something of an experiment, a sort of thinking aloud, where I try to work through (hopefully with readers' assistance) some confusing and ambiguous political labels.

First, let me get it out of the way: I know Obama isn't a socialist. If you're here as an Obama rallyist, you can spare me. I got the message. You like Obama. Awesome. I'm with you. Now let's move on, and consider what socialism is, what it isn't, and whether we as progressive Democrats should embrace the label, scorn it, or ignore it. Everything I write here is going to be a summary of things I just googled up. Treat this post as an open thread for thoughts or references on the topic.

The title of this post comes from a line in Engels's essay, describing earlier Enlightment conceptions of socialism in the late 18th century, particularly around the French Revolution and development of industry. Of these earlier Socialist attempts, Engels wrote:

One thing is common to all three ["Utopians" (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen)]. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.

Engels's underlying beef here, as I read it, is that previous Socialists had attempted to reform society from first principles, using Enlightment ideals of reason conquering all, and basing their plans on their own assumptions about equality, justice, and righteousness. Since few people ever agree on such things, these attempts descended into unresolvable conflicts or else what we would today call watered-down compromises.

Unfortunately, as ordinary taxpayers, we don't have that much influence over the final budget. If we want to see more money put into biomedical research or the arts we can vote every couple years, we can try to lobby Congress, or we can give to charitable groups and bypass the government entirely. Maybe there ought to be a more direct method.

Suppose we try something new. Take the budget -- Bush's proposal is over $3 trillion -- and make a 0.1% across-the-board cut, reducing every agency's funding by one penny out of every 10 dollars. Take the resulting $3 billion and put it into a Taxpayer-Directed Spending fund. And let the people decide where that money should go.

February 02, 2008

A month ago there was a spate of "sky is green" articles claiming that Iraq is no longer an important issue for voters:

Iraq War Fades as an Election Issue (NPR, Dec 6) "...concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration."

Pocketbook issues push past Iraq in poll (USA Today, Dec 28) "More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them."

Domestic issues now outweigh Iraq (NY Times, Jan 3) "...the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes."

The funny thing is, when this voter sees "health care," "mortgage crisis," "rising gas costs," "the environment," and "taxes" I read them all as a single four-letter word: Iraq.

November 18, 2007

I'm a determined skeptic about broadcast "accidents." But for the life of me, I can't understand the precise goal of allowing a discussion about not discussing the falling dollar at the OPEC summit to be caught on tape. Here's the Financial Times' version of events--which depicts it as disagreement about the underlying issue.

In a landmark summit, leaders of the Organisation of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries are meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were divided
over how they should respond to the weakness of the US dollar, which
has fallen 16 per cent this year against a basket of leading currencies.

The
dollar has dropped 44 per cent against the euro since Opec leaders last
met in Caracas, Venezuela in 2000. Opec members are also divided about
whether the group should seek to play a greater role in world politics
as well as in the oil market.

The disagreement was revealed when
a ministerial meeting Friday afternoon, supposed to be in closed
session, was accidentally broadcast live to reporters for about 30
minutes, before Saudi officials cut off the transmission.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest
crude oil exporter, rejected a proposal by Iran and Venezuela to
discuss the weak dollar at this weekend's OPEC summit in Riyadh,
saying it didn't want the U.S. currency to ``collapse.''

Saudi Arabia won't discuss pricing oil in currencies other
than the dollar, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal
said, speaking at a meeting of oil and finance ministers today
that was accidentally broadcast to journalists.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which
pumps more than 40 percent of the world's oil, has seen its
revenue diminish because of the decline in the dollar over the
past three years. OPEC holds a heads of state summit in Riyadh
tomorrow.

``As for the monetary aspect and the dollar I would like to
ask his Excellency, the minister of Iran, to leave this question
to the appropriate party, the ministers of finance, without
mentioning that we gave them this task so that there won't be
negative impact from OPEC,'' Al-Faisal said, speaking in
reaction to an Iranian proposal to discuss the currency.

Note carefully--what al-Faisal rejected was the (public) discussion of the dollar, not a consideration of whether to move away from the dollar. He left that task to the ministers of finance, which suggests he, too, thinks it worthy of consideration. He just wants that consideration to be "secret." Whoops.

I thought, at first, that whoever "accidentally" taped this wanted to expose Venezuelan and Iranian interest in moving away from the dollar. But that's not exactly a secret to anyone paying attention. So if this is indeed intentional, why broadcast a discussion about not making something public, thereby making it public? Does it reflect dissent within the Saudi family over whether they--and OPEC--should jettison the dollar?

Thus far, the broadcast statements haven't accelerated the decline of the dollar. Perhaps the markets have already adjusted to the eventual move away from dollars (not). Or perhaps they're as confused by this exchange as I am.

November 17, 2007

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its fourth report (summary here), which synthesizes for policymakers attending the forthcoming UN conference in Bali the three reports that it issued earlier this year as part of its Fourth Assessment Report. Some of its conclusions are that

climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

But climate change may also bring about "abrupt and irreversible impacts" such as glacial melting and extinction of species.

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C (relative to the 1980-1999 average)," the summary concludes.

Other potential impacts highlighted in the text include:

between 75m and 250m people are projected to have scarcer fresh water supplies than at present

yields from rain-fed agriculture could be halved

food security is likely to be further compromised in Africa

there will be widespread impacts on coral reefs

One problem with the IPPC consensus process is that it takes a great deal of time, and thus it is not clear whether the newest report takes into account the accelerated arctic melting seen this year. But it is clear that things are happening faster than anticipated, the BBC reports:

"If you look at the overall picture of impacts, both those occurring now and those projected for the future, they appear to be both larger and appearing earlier than we thought [in our 2001 report]," Martin Parry, co-chair of the impacts working group, told BBC News.

"Some of the changes that we previously projected for around 2020 or 2030 are occurring now, such as the Arctic melt and shifts in the locations of various species."

There are indications that projected increases in droughts are also happening earlier than expected, he said, though that was less certain.

Interestingly, the IPPC finds that absent human factors, the climate would have cooled over the last 50 years (due to volcanoes and solar changes); only models that simulate human effects produce warming over this period. Warming is greatest in the northern polar regions and then in the north temperate and tropical zones (with the exception of the ocean area influenced by the jet stream). It is least in the southern temperate zone and southern seas. Human influences are "very likely" to have led to sea level increases.

The IPPC consensus now exhibits greater confidence in projections about droughts, heatwaves and floods, and their adverse consequences, plus stronger evidence of adverse impacts now on vulnerable ecosystems, such as polar and high-mountain regions and coral reefs.

In the ffuture, as temperatures rise, Africa and Asia will be particularly hard hit, in part because they already face shortages of good water and areas of extreme drought. Overall dry areas will become drier, low-lying areas will be wetter, smaller islands will be imperiled. Arctic areas will be transformed. Climate and weather will become more extreme. The widely-held impression that North America will suffer the least seems to be somewhat true, although serious effects are anticipated in cities that already experience heat waves, as are water shortages in the West, significant variability in agricultural impacts, increased intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and stress on coastal areas generally.

Projected changes are accelerating, and will persist for a millenium even if changes are made, raising the specter of whether, and how soon, we are facing irreversible changes or a "tipping point." Most serious seems to be accelerating Arctic ice melting, as this could cause meters of sea level increases, beyond what the models anticipate. The Jet Stream looks safe to the end of the century, despite some slowing, which will help moderate rising temperatures in Europe. (In case you were wondering, Dubai's spectacular islands have been designed to withstand at least a half meter rise in sea level, which was the high end anticipated by the end of this century. Some projections are now for three times that.)

Dealing with climate change has costs, but so does failing to deal with climate change, given the near certainty of the trajectory of change. The report concludes that

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

But we need "substantial investment flows" and "effective technology transfer," meaning lots of money and getting the solutions to where they are needed. The longer we wait, the harder it is, because we need to begin to reverse that nasty increasing trendline, and the longer we wait, not only is it getting steeper, but because of the persistence of greenhouse gases, the stabilization level, and the attendant changes (such as temperature and sea level increases), will be higher. It looks from the chart like we have about ten years if we want things to stabilize at or near 2005 levels of greenhouse gases. If the CO2 peak comes after the 2010-2030 period, the resulting world will look very different from what we have now.

Update:

Surprise, surprise. The US representative tried to water the report down. More of the Bush/Cheney regime's attempts to make policy by denying reality. By contrast, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for action.

November 14, 2007

This morning's paper reveals that California has made real progress in both reducing energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while at the same time enjoying overall growth in per capita GDP. The California Green Innovation Index, a report detailing the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contains some stunning data:

-- The amount of greenhouse gases produced for every Californian has dropped since 1990. At the same time, California's per-capita gross domestic product - the value of the services and goods produced in the state - has risen. The state's economy, in other words, has been thriving despite the reduction in per-person emissions.

-- California emits less greenhouse gas per person than any other state except Rhode Island. California's economy produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions for every dollar of gross domestic product than Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom.

-- Californians pay less on their monthly electricity bills than do residents of many other states. In 2005, for example, California's average monthly electricity bill was $74, compared with $135 in Texas. Although mild weather plays a part, so do tough energy-efficiency standards adopted in the 1970s for buildings and appliances.

-- About 22,000 Californians were directly employed by green-tech companies in 2006. In the same year, California's green-tech businesses soaked up 36 percent of all the money venture capitalists spent on the industry within the United States.

My morning paper contains a stunning graph (not in the online version) showing that since 1990 per capita emissions have dropped almost 10 percent while per capita GDP growth has increased 20 percent, despite downturns in 1992-3 and 2001-2002. Other surprises: Californians drive less per person than the national average and miles driven per person has dropped since 2002.

In other words, solid public programs and creative but stringent and science-based, innovative regulation can have a salutary effect. It is not only possible to have solid economic growth and make progress on environmental issues, the two may just go hand in hand.

While the report notes that much more needs to be done to make a real dent in global warming, it should help reinforce the idea that improvements in emissions and energy usage can be good economically as well as environmentally.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, the natives are praying for rain. For those not aware of it, the southeast, not the west, is the region hardest hit by drought in the US.

October 30, 2007

There's an interesting case study going on over at the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee is trying to write legislation to return the Consumer Product Safety Commission to its former strength so it can prevent things like lead-filled toys from entering the toddler chew chain. Yet the Commission's acting head, Nancy Nord, is trying to preserve the Norquistian "ideal" of small government--she's objecting to Senate plans to give her Commission more money and other resources.

The nation’s top official for consumer product safety has asked
Congress in recent days to reject legislation intended to strengthen
the agency, which polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to
tools.

On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of
legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its
budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.

Ms. Nord
opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety
violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports
of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute
executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

I'm sure it will surprise no one reading that Nord was not chosen for a life-long affiliation with consumer interests?

Ms. Nord, who before joining the agency had been a lawyer at Eastman Kodak and an official at the United States Chamber of Commerce,

The Administration is also having Allen Hubbard write a letter to express concern, no doubt, that if Mattel has to stop selling toys with lead, the entire economy will collapse. As if it weren't collapsing on Greenspan's ARM bubble already.

It'll be an interesting fight. Average Americans find it hard to mobilize to do things like oppose war. But many otherwise apathetic Americans will mobilize when you tell them--as Nord has--that it's "not practical" to remove all the lead from the toys their kids are playing with.

The recent spate of food and product problems provide easy proof that Grover Norquist's drowning government doesn't work. It'll be interesting to see how consumers respond if they learn that the woman their taxes pay to keep their kids safe refuses to do her job.

October 29, 2007

Back when I taught, at the beginning of the school year each year the school would hand professors a description of the incoming freshman class so the professors could understand what world their students were coming from. It usually read something like:

2007: This year's incoming freshmen were born in 1989.

The top TV series for most of these students' teen years was American Idol.

These students matured after the first big judgments against online file-sharing.

During these students' freshman year of high school, the first legal gay marriages were performed in this country.

The Exxon Valdez disaster happened the year most of these freshmen were born.

I made up the whole list (though I think I'm close on most counts)--and my ignorance of current pop culture has been pretty well established. But my point was to contextualize the Exxon Valdez disaster which did, indeed, occur the year that most incoming college freshmen were born. It's been 18 years, and the interim years have seen record-smashing profits for Exxon, not to mention two wars to ensure our access to oil in the Middle East.

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear an appeal by Exxon Mobil Corp.
that seeks to overturn $2.5 billion in punitive damages a federal court
ordered the company to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off
Alaska.

Stepping into the long-running dispute between the world's largest
publicly traded oil company and more than 30,000 class-action
plaintiffs, the court separately rejected the plaintiffs' appeal to
reinstate the trial jury's original award of $5 billion in punitive
damages. The 1994 award ultimately was cut in half during an appeals
process that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,
which issued its ruling in December.

Exxon Mobil argues that the $2.5 billion punitive award violates
federal maritime law, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case to
settle that question. The justices declined to consider an argument
that the award was so large that it violates the Constitution.

Now, setting aside the legal merits (or not) of Exxon's appeal (and note, Alito recused himself, so at least it'll be a relatively fair 4-4 fight), consider what this means for the externalities of business behavior and the environment. Exxon's negligence devastated the environment in Valdez for some time. But the only costs Exxon thinks it should pay are clean-up costs. And eighteen years after it caused that damage, our society (the same one funding wars that benefit Exxon) still haven't gotten the fine imposed on Exxon for its negligence.

October 28, 2007

The
dollar fell as low as $1.4426 per euro, the weakest since the
introduction of the 13-nation common currency in 1999, before trading
at $1.4420 as of 6:29 a.m. in Tokyo from $1.4393 in late New York on
Oct. 26. It may drop as low as $1.4530 this week, Gibbs said.

CARACAS (Reuters) - OPEC is likely to discuss creating a basket of
currencies for oil pricing at its next summit due to the steady decline
in the dollar, Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said on
Friday.

"The need to establish a basket of currencies ... will probably
be a point of discussion in the next OPEC summit," Ramirez told
reporters during an evening event in the presidential palace.

"The dollar as a benchmark currency has been weakening quite a lot and it creates distortions in oil markets."

While disturbing, it wouldn't mean much except for the fact that
this is merely the latest step in a trend away from the dollar by OPEC
nations. For example:

(There's lots more in gjohnsit's diary, so click through and read it all.)

I'm not surprised that any of this is happening--it was all predictable at least four years ago (and I'm not an economist). What's surprising is the acceleration of this process--and of the decline of the dollar. Like I said, I'm not an economist, but the acceleration of this process sure seems to make it a lot more likely that we're going to end up like Argentina, with a massive meltdown, in the near future.

And it surely will make the wedding I'm going to in Scotland next spring a lot more expensive to attend.